Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: It is part of the savanna grass land, covering two counties
Evidence B:The project focuses on a large ecosystem which includes protected wildlife areas as well as private ranches and community lands occupied by pastoralists. It is an ecosystem where all users are inter-dependent.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: there is n mention of this
Evidence B:It is important because it over-exploitation of one area affects the sustainability of the whole. The conservancy also deals in carbon sequestration.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Heavy partnership and governance with NRT and National governement
Evidence B:The project brings together four different pastoralist communities= the Samburu, Turkana, Borana and Somali. They contribute significantly to the sustainability of the ecosystem.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The explanation given was more for the leadership and management of the conservancy but no explanation is given for unique cultural significance of all the four communities represented
Evidence B:Each of the 4 communities have rich unique systems that would be interesting to include.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: 80% of land being covered by an invasive plant that prevents the growth of grass is quite high considering that grass is needed for supporting pastoralists livelihoods
Evidence B:All parts are important for the success of the whole.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Very good regulations without implementation plans
Evidence B:National and county governments provide along with legal and policy frameworks.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: IPLCs in Isiolo are well supported by the National and County Governemnt
Evidence B:See above.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: They have been awarded and recognised twice as the best community and indigenous led conservation by NRT
Evidence B:All conservancies are in close collaboration.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: there are few projects funded by USAID through NRT, like the beading project, carbon credit and livestock trading
Evidence B:Many of them exist in the in the region.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The IPLCs are well placed in the management plan and are beneficiaries in the whole conservation plan
Evidence B:Pastoralism and wildlife conservation are complementary.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: So many activities but relevant to the conservancy
Evidence B:They are but need actual timing.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Getting rid of the invasive species and the expansive area it covers is abit over ambitious
Evidence B:They can be achieved.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: yes very well achievable
Evidence B:The project has previously handled less amounts of financial support,
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: the sale of beads and livestock are very low investments, but with NRT and USAID , there is moderate co financing
Evidence B:Moderate but some is long term.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposal indicates 34,000Ha
Evidence B:The amounts the project has been handling are moderate.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There is mention of beads and livestock sale
Evidence B:Not all of them are detailed but yes they are at the core of the project.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: This is clear throughout the proposal
Evidence B:There are clearly provided and there are long term commitments. Better grazing means better and healthier herds, hence better livelihoods,
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Well illustrated contributions to NCCAP 2013, 2017
Evidence B:Through partnership with county and national governments there have been contribution/
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: There is mention of women and youth activities, and the bead work is primarily done by women and this is their contribution in a big way
Evidence B:The iproject is clearly aware of the constitutional gender requirements.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: 34,000 Ha is not small and knowing that it will reach 4 indigenous communities
Evidence B:To the extent in which they are detailed.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The leadership and management of the conservancy is all IPLC, but there is also partnership with NRT in the management and other county and national parastatals
Evidence B:Yes. Other skills are accessed from outside.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The lead does demonstrate hands-on ground leadership absolutely
Evidence B:The project has been sensitive to ensure inclusion and balance of all the four pastoralist communities in the project area.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The partnerships mentioned by the applicant in Q21 are only NRT, ACTION AID and a research institute, no mention of any IPLC organizations
Evidence B:Partnership is well articulated.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: the skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities, may be this question was not understood by the applicant
Evidence B:They have the necessary skills and can access what they do not have.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: There is no evidence given of demonstrated financial competency
Evidence B:Most of the criteria are met on a moderate scale.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: yes but no explanation
Evidence B:There is awareness of safeguards.